Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-06-04

which give relief not recognized in this
state; even the most liberal state comfy
does not require this. The demurrer to
the petition should have been sustained,
and failure to do 50 requires reversal of
the Judgment, aud as there is no cause of
action the cause is dismissed, appellee to
pay all costs above and below.
r. M. Thompson vs.. Houston and
Texas Central Railway, from Travis;
opinion by Stayton, A. J. This was an
action to try title to several tracts of
land brought by appellee. Between No.
Vemher 10 and December Z, 1874, one
Turh5lu, was eJpOinted dspu-y Sheriff.
He did not Iusl,jy by Ciy,-G bond until
December 10. SOmeti.ge IL November
without actually surveying the land in
controversy, be ran sucI lines rs to
enable him 20 make cute rect iui notes
OF the tract OF land in cOGJT versv.
Appellee had several certificates, which
had been located OF land covered by
older grants, etc, and receiving certified
copies OF them on Dec m1er Is, d iivered
them TO TUrubul, VINO on December 26
made on. neId notes, out they bore date
OF the time whaa, By running some lines,
he acquired information without 81 ac-
tual survey by which he couli make cut
correct tieIt notes. These, with the GER
titic9tes, were returned 20 the General
Land Office. These papers were seen and
reSd by ipp, liant, au5 With such
notice OF appe!.Ce's claim ne on NJgem-
Der !, 1881, caused the land so claimed to
be located, end his certificate, &c, were
returned to the Land Odlce. Il cannot
be denied that the land vas vacant WIEN
appellee located It's certificate on f. It
is clear that TurnDul had 10 authority
~ run the lines when DC dit by virtue of
appellee's certificate, for S. ths5 time
they were IN tle Land Office, hut could he
nor use the knowledge he had acc gired in
making out field uotes ny yi.tue
OF appeuee's certificate. The field notes
were correct and the certificates were in
the hands Of Turnbull or tGe county sur
veyOr when they were made Ou.. The
manner Of making surveys was nos 50 ex-
acting IL l814jas the law now requires.
has been frequently decided thst sur
veyOr may adopt g survey previously
made, and we are of the opinion cHst the
land described in the field notes, exc was
legally appropriated. Appellant lad full
opportunity to examine all TIE papers in
the land Office ulaliye 70 the land
had full notice OF appeuee's claim.
There was one certificate OF appclaeis,
No. 81, by virtue If which judgment gas
rendered for $40 acres described So sur
yey No. II. There is not Sufficient evil
dence to supper tlis part Of The juds-
ment. We think It more likely to SAB
serve the ends Of justice 70 reverse the
judgment ard remand the cause than 10
decide it here.
Texas ana Pacific Rlilrosj Company
vs.. Mary NJ. Davidson, from Mitchell;
opinion by Willie, c. J. Appellee was
travelling from Fort Worth to Colorado
City, and before the tram LETT Fort Worth
she attempted, with the help OF al en-
plOye Of the company, to ascend the steps
of the platform, the conductor having
told her the traia would not leave for
10 minutes. While so ascending in the
specified time the train moved and she
was JhroWc down, receiving severe IL
iuries. IN amended petition was put il,
more fully setting forth the !Djarjes re-
Ceived. Appellant aau:ur.ed 10 ne
amended petition because il was more
than a year after the accident happened.
4 verdict was obtained for 5000 AD-
pellant complained that il was error to
override tlG demurrer 70 the amend
ed petition, but this point has been
clearly and specifically deCiCed the other
way IL international and Great Northern
Railroad Us. Irvine, 81 Tex. 533. Appel
lee relied on The ten minutes time % get
on the train, ard the assurance OfG brake
man thai she had plenty q time, aid it
was not proven that she contributed neg
ligence to the injuries received. There is
70 error, sTd the judgment is affirmed.
n. L. MAY vs.. Rufus lVie, from Mon
Appellee as administrator OF the
recover on notes and icreCIOse O mort
gage for the purchase money Of tract of
lsnG. John Ivie sold the land to one
Compton who gave mortgage on Z and
received general warranty deed.
Compton then sold 70 appellant who as
sumed the notes and received q general
deed. As q defence May alleges
that John Ivie vas married man and
that his wife died leaving children.
Compton XII eW of this fact and Iyie prom
ised that he would apply TO court for such
orders etc IS to confirm the sale. APP
pellant also knew of this fact
ana received the same promise
from Ivie. These facts are all relied on
to show failure OF title. These frcts are
no defense to appellee's claim as il has
been decided several times that one who
purchases through a deed with general
warranty with defect in the title 81 the
time cannot resist payment OF purchase
money. The Judgment is affirmed.
Shot by a Policeman.